WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

A president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice. Any crime he commits while in office is handled by impeachment proceedings. That's why the Constitution doesn't specify any given criminal conduct, but speaks generally and collectively of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

After a president is removed from office he may be indicted and tried for the underlying crime.

Right now, it's the minority-President's word against Comey's. But why are there no witnesses? If the minority-President asked everyone to vacate the room, that would appear to suggest he was anticipating surreptitious, if not illegal behavior.

Comey is in the habit of keeping contemporaneously-written memos about all meetings, and apparently he has one of this meeting. Contemporaneous notes, particularly if done out of habit, are admissible over the hearsay objection. Under the Rules of Evidence they have a higher confidence factor.

Trump has suggested he has tapes of the meeting. If he is bullshitting, that's another lie...and one more strike against his veracity. If, on the other hand, he has tapes, they will be a check on the story (provided they haven't been tampered with--remember Rosemary Wood's 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes?).

The proof is in the pudding. Unless Trump has ironclad proof, his balls (what's left) must be dripping sweat.

If it comes down to he-said, they-said, Trump is a conspicuous and proven liar, a reputation he has carefully and skillfully cultivated himself. Remember his allegation that Obama was born in Kenya? And he's still at it: where's the proof that Obama "wiretapped" Trump Tower?

If it comes down to belief, he will be judged according to his reputation.

Original Quill wrote:A president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice. Any crime he commits while in office is handled by impeachment proceedings. That's why the Constitution doesn't specify any given criminal conduct, but speaks generally and collectively of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

After a president is removed from office he may be indicted and tried for the underlying crime.

Right now, it's the minority-President's word against Comey's. But why are there no witnesses? If the minority-President asked everyone to vacate the room, that would appear to suggest he was anticipating surreptitious, if not illegal behavior.

Comey is in the habit of keeping contemporaneously-written memos about all meetings, and apparently he has one of this meeting. Contemporaneous notes, particularly if done out of habit, are admissible over the hearsay objection. Under the Rules of Evidence they have a higher confidence factor.

Trump has suggested he has tapes of the meeting. If he is bullshitting, that's another lie...and one more strike against his veracity. If, on the other hand, he has tapes, they will be a check on the story (provided they haven't been tampered with--remember Rosemary Wood's 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes?).

you are not a minority president when you won the electoral collage vote by a significant margin.I think you agree it is the electoral collage that decides who wins? You need a majority of those votes.

_________________"If a socialist understood economics, he wouldn't be a socialist" : Friedrich Hayek"

I know a place where your speech is free

and the only mod is me

Israel uses weapons to protect its people, the Palestinians use people to protect their weapons

Original Quill wrote:A president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice. Any crime he commits while in office is handled by impeachment proceedings. That's why the Constitution doesn't specify any given criminal conduct, but speaks generally and collectively of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

After a president is removed from office he may be indicted and tried for the underlying crime.

Right now, it's the minority-President's word against Comey's. But why are there no witnesses? If the minority-President asked everyone to vacate the room, that would appear to suggest he was anticipating surreptitious, if not illegal behavior.

Comey is in the habit of keeping contemporaneously-written memos about all meetings, and apparently he has one of this meeting. Contemporaneous notes, particularly if done out of habit, are admissible over the hearsay objection. Under the Rules of Evidence they have a higher confidence factor.

Trump has suggested he has tapes of the meeting. If he is bullshitting, that's another lie...and one more strike against his veracity. If, on the other hand, he has tapes, they will be a check on the story (provided they haven't been tampered with--remember Rosemary Wood's 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes?).

you are not a minority president when you won the electoral collage vote by a significant margin.

Yes, you are. The terms plurality, majority and minority refer to the numbers in the popular vote count, not to a decision made by a elite committee like the electoral college. Remember, America is not a democracy. A committee selects the president. So when we speak of the successful presidential candidate, we are not necessarily speaking of popular numbers.

Dino wrote:I think you agree it is the electoral collage that decides who wins? You need a majority of those votes.

That's two questions: 1) yes, the electoral college decides who becomes president; 2) no, a candidate does not need a majority of the popular vote for the electoral college to declare him or her a winner. Once again, the United States is not a democracy.

Two of the last three presidents (Bush and Trump) have become president after losing the popular vote. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election to Al Gore, by a count of 50,456,002 to 50,999,897. Trump lost the popular vote in the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton, by a count of 62,984,825 to 65,853,516. In this century, only Obama has received the blessing of the electoral college with the concurrence of the popular vote.

The US is not a single nation. It is an alliance of 50 different states. The electoral college is a committee of representatives of those states, which meets to choose a single executive. It can select whomever it wants. Frequently it might follow the suggestion of the popular vote, but on many occasions it chooses not to.